Control over administration refers to the ability to influence or direct the actions and decisions of a government or organization. This can be exercised through a variety of means, including legal frameworks, institutional structures, and political processes.
One important aspect of control over administration is the separation of powers. In a democratic system, the three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) are designed to operate independently and act as checks and balances on each other. This helps to ensure that no single branch has too much power and can prevent abuses of authority.
Another way in which control over administration can be exercised is through elections. In a democratic system, citizens have the right to vote for their representatives, who are then responsible for making decisions on their behalf. This allows individuals to have a say in the direction of their government and hold their elected officials accountable for their actions.
Political parties also play a role in control over administration. Parties provide a platform for individuals with shared ideologies and policy positions to come together and advocate for their positions. Parties can also act as a means for holding politicians accountable to their constituents, as voters can choose to support or reject a party based on its actions and policies.
Institutional structures, such as oversight committees and watchdog organizations, can also help to exercise control over administration. These bodies are responsible for monitoring and evaluating the actions of government officials and can hold them accountable for any abuses of power or mismanagement.
Ultimately, control over administration is essential for ensuring that government and organizations are accountable to the people they serve. It helps to prevent abuses of power and promotes transparency and fairness in decision-making processes. By exercising control over administration, individuals and communities can shape the direction of their government and hold it accountable to their needs and values.
JUDICIAL CONTROL OVER ADMINISTRATION, ACCOUNTABILITY AND SEPARATION OF POWER
What are Administrative Controls Administrative controls are one of the control measures which takes into consideration the training, procedure, policy, or shift designs that lessen the threat of a hazard to an individual. The point in the drive in Delhi is an evidence of the failure of the governance, as the judiciary stepped into the shoes of the Executive. This undermines the prestige and the effectiveness of the judiciary. It is also called a vote of censure. This tussle resulted in landmark judgments of Indira Gandhi, Golaknath, and Kesavananda Bharti and also laid down the basic structure doctrine. Every department justifies its actions 'as per the provisions of the constitution'. The concept of rule of law further requires that no person should be subjected to harsh or arbitrary treatment.
Judicial Control Over Administrative Acts: Administrative Law Notes
Broadly speaking, there are two systems of legal remedies against administrative encroachments on the rights of citizens. Procedure in administration ensures accountability, openness and justice. This committee has helped not only to keep vigil on the administration efficiency, but has also help in removing many of the defects inherent in the previous system. Visual cues can remind workers which areas are prohibited from entering, when breaks need to be taken to limit heat exposure, and much more. The administration cannot spend a single rupee without the sanction of legislature. The matter maybe small or big, it cannot escape from the fusillade of criticism from the opposition.
Control over Administration
In recent years, there are many allegations of corruption against judges. It is then too much to say that under the Constitution the duty to make laws, the duty to exercise its own wisdom, judgment and patriotism in making law is primarily cast on the legislature? On federal relief policies, see Macmahon, A. Various high courts reinterpreted Article 356 so that the blanket powers of the governors to dismiss state governments were curtailed, the power to punish for contempt of court under Article 142 was expanded beyond court rooms and 'inherent powers' of the SC was used to cover a wider range of subjects. They were later dismissed from service. But these administrative functionaries and the agencies are resulting in maladministration and the corruption.